MovieChat Forums > It Chapter Two (2019) Discussion > Why is the first movie so loved but not ...

Why is the first movie so loved but not this one?

posted 4 years ago by BurningSun (717)
26 replies | jump to latest

I haven’t seen It 2 yet. I did see the first one in theaters. People were going nuts about it and calling it one of the best films of the year. Some were upset that Get Out recieved Oscar attention and not It. A few people on this very board attacked me when I said it was just okay and not deserving of any Oscars.

So why isn’t this one as revered? What did this one do differently? It’s made by the same people, so it can’t be that different, right? Is the first movie still seen as some horror masterpiece by most people? Or did the hype wear off and people just weren’t as forgiving the second time?

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

I'm a staunch defender of this movie, and I've been SAVAGELY attacked by haters here as well. Looking at the reviews plastered everywhere, audiences love this movie even more than critics, but even those audiences are divided. A lot of lovers of this movie love the characters, especially the shipping between them (Eddie and Richie (cough)), but people hate it for stuff that was actually in the book itself, which is baffling, like when they have to split up to remember their childhoods, that happened in the book. The gathering of tokens is a movie invention, but that's to give some purpose to just aimlessly wandering around, but haters still didn't like it. Then there's the CGI, of which haters seem to think there is more of than there actually is, but I think it did the job very well, considering the timescale and the budget, and some of the creature designs are excellent.

No, I think people are bashing IT Chapter 2 maybe because they think it didn't improve enough upon the 1990 miniseries (it certainly DID), or that there is too much humour, which doesn't damage the movie for me, or there are no scares, which is countered by fans saying there are.

This movie is divisive, and I don't know why. Maybe they just don't like the story?

[–] fn217phasma (70) 4 years ago

So what you are saying is because something was in the book it is exempt from criticism?

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Well, yes, because it's part of King's story.

[–] fn217phasma (70) 4 years ago

Therefore bad writing is perfectly fine as long as it is part of the book. Gotcha!

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Is that really the complaint? That King wrote that the Losers separate to remember their past in the book, that the screenwriter copied that faithfully (with some semblance of a goal added) and that's the main complaint people have about the movie?? The point is the Losers FORGOT their past, so they had to remember it, each encountering Pennywise to jog their memories! I fail to see why that is a problem, and they add flashbacks to previous encounters as kids that we never saw, so it's not exactly recycled stuff. And if that is the problem, then that's Pennywise continuing to season them.

So you're saying the problem is King's prose, not the screenplay which faithfully uses it?

[–] ATG6 (3000) 4 years ago

the story was fine. the editing needed a lot of work, and a lot shorter running time.

[–] Kowalski (56913) 4 years ago

THE KIDS.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

The first movie is loved as a coming-of-age story, yes, but unfortunately, that's only half the story. Blame King if you're not happy with how the adult story turned out.

[–] Ken12602 (481) 4 years ago

I haven't seen either movie but I know in the book, the parts with the kids is far superior to the parts with the adults.

[–] zephyr_cape (2979) 4 years ago

I suspect the height of the positive reception of part one was largely a fluke of optimistic confirmation bias. Part one looked very promising, it had been such a long time coming with such a storied production history that it had become somewhat legendary, the hype at launch was super positive, it did enough right while playing into nostalgia at just the right time that audiences were on a sort of optimism fueled high, allowing it to register as better than it is. Almost all of the shortcomings of Chapter Two were present in part one as well, and they're both very consistent in quality, (that being imho not without some great elements, but ultimately fatally flawed and mediocre.)

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

"Almost all of the shortcomings of Chapter Two were present in part one as well"
What shortcomings? To be honest, I don't care, as long as it renders the 1990 miniseries invalid.

[–] zephyr_cape (2979) 4 years ago

The biggest ones that come to mind are major issues with pacing, (which could be connected to a fundamental problem of format,) un-excellent editing, lots of sci-fi channel bad vfx work, lack of convincing tonal gestalt, and in my opinion wasted opportunity to use a very rife source material to build something with real guts and vision, capable of making us all forget about the 90s series, and that could stand alongside the great horror classics.

Sorry, Foebane, I'm one of those who still prefers the miniseries. 90s part one was already great, and it's perhaps an effect of the material being more engaging, but that's where they really blew the biggest opportunity they had in doing this remake. Part two really needed some fresh juice and vision to be worthwhile. There was so much room to improve and they should have been able to nuke it off the planet with one hand tied behind the back, and I see what they ended up with as no better than a side-step. It's a goofy, indecisive let down, just in a slightly different way.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

My preference for the new movies is probably the shift in time period, and I personally grew up in and love the 80s. Even my parents were children in the 1950s, so there would be no frame of reference for me. Stephen King doesn't mind the shift in time period, he actually seems to endorse it! And every future adaptation of IT will have to shift time periods, too.

I didn't mind the miniseries, heck, I liked it for years, but I've grown to prefer the new cast. The miniseries feels extremely dated now, and the title music is not as good as the new compositions. That music, for example, that plays during the blood oath and Stanley's letter really makes me cry, every time.

"The biggest ones that come to mind are major issues with pacing"
Muschietti was planning to make a miniseries, or certainly a supercut, free from the restrictions and expectations of theatrical releases. Maybe you'd like it more then?

In any case, I love the HEART of these new movies, something the miniseries didn't have. It was also a mild horror story, and that was in no way going to be served by a made-for-tv-sanitised-network-lame-fodder that didn't even allow for natural kid cussing, let alone any sense of violence and gore. And you like the miniseries more?? As far as I'm concerned, the 1990 miniseries is down there with all the other hokey made-for-tv Stephen King adaptations like his own version of The Shining and Pet Sematary. IT Chapters 1 and 2 are up there with The Green Mile and Misery and the other THEATRICAL adaptations of King's. No, it's not quite Shawshank Redemption or the Shining, but IT comes close. BOTH of them.

[–] zephyr_cape (2979) 4 years ago

The time shift is fine. I grew up in and love the 80s too. I did really like how It appeared to the kids as Universal classic monsters when it was set in the 50s though. There's something uniquely creepy and kitschy about that in a way that resonates with me a lot. I was half expecting that in the remake perhaps we'd instead see It show up as some of the classic 80s horror characters but they just skipped that bit and downplayed the time period quite a bit.

Stephen King doesn't mind the shift in time period, he actually seems to endorse it!

I personally think SK is 50% a hack fwiw. Filmmakers should do whatever they need to do with his source material to make a great film. So far I find Kubrick has made the best SK based film, and of course Stephen did not approve, so the pattern seems to be, the more he disapproves, the better the film.

And every future adaptation of IT will have to shift time periods, too.

Can't wait for IT X - IT in Space!

We're into the weeds on a lot of really personal preference-y issues, but I just love the way that the 90s version is dated. It feels much more grounded, surreal, and genuinely creepy to me, but admittedly stop motion, practical effects, 80s and earlier feels, the right kind of cheese, etc are totally my thing.

I'm a big fan of the Richard Bellis score to the extent that I've semi ripped off elements of it in my own music. I think it set up a quality of epic scope, while putting across a real sense of dread and melancholy, and it's just the right amount of cheesy and conceptually considered. The Wallfisch score is not bad, but it does feel more derivative and generic to me. The sweeping epic movements take the Elfman lite approach that has become the hollywood go-to, the horror synth parts are very much the standard saw bass sweeps and slams, and the tender sections sound like they could have been pulled from a prescription medication commercial and don't connect to a gestalt to my ear. It all sounds nice enough, but I would have liked it to have been more daring and specific.

Muschietti was planning to make a miniseries, or certainly a supercut, free from the restrictions and expectations of theatrical releases. Maybe you'd like it more then?

I would certainly check it out! I want this to be good. But the movies I saw were super rushed and choppy.

It's cool that you liked them. I guess I just have really strong opinions about the remake because I think the source material is such a fascinating jumping off point for a film and over the years have formed my own vision of what could be done with it. I would have a field day making my own adaptation.

[–] GetWokeGoBroke (637) a year ago

That's what they did with Das Boot.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Because it sucks ass?

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Well, the 1990 miniseries certainly does.

[–] whynotwriteme (7108) 4 years ago

I hated the first one, so maybe I will prefer part 2. I usually do not agree with the tastes of the mainstream audiences.

[–] LeWildPlatypus (765) 4 years ago

It's the same situation with the 1990 TV version. The first part has the theme of childhood innocence and facing your fears and the second part has adults trying to recapture what they had as kids. The second part was overstuffed compared to the first. It wasn't bad, just not as good as the first.

[–] spurtle467 (1497) 4 years ago

I've just watched this sequel for the first time, and it wasn't as good as the first part. I didn't "love" the first one but it was enjoyable and well made, while having a few issues of its own that this sequel had and more, such as not being very scary, and the repetitive use of the "let's have a one on one with an ugly CGI creature that leaves nothing to the imagination" moment.

Yeah, the nostalgic, coming of age feel of the first one had that going for it and made it more appealing than the second, and because it focused on the kids throughout, the story and pacing was better. Not all of this is the film's fault of course, as I imagine (I haven't read it) some is down to the source material it has to work with from the book.

What could have been helped in the sequel regardless of the book, was the tonal shifts. I mean tonally the second film was a bit inconsistent with gags and humour that felt very out of place when they were brought up. I never had a problem with the kids making wisecracks etc. in the first so much. It felt natural and akin to what kids would say. In this one Richie and Eddie's jokey approach in certain scenes didn't sit well. I also thought the addition of the whole ritual and native American stuff felt too whacky. I know this would have been stuff King had in the book but its inclusion didn't exactly do the storytelling in the film many favours. I suppose it's a case of knowing what to and what not to include, like the wisely omitted kid orgy from the first.

By the way, both parts are still an improvement on the miniseries.